Building The 'Perfect' WW2 Grand Strategic Simulation

[Rayfer]

What exactly would you like to see replace the tech tree?  There is no getting around the fact that (using WWII as an example) there was a massive increase in the types and effectiveness of military hardware in a short time between 1935 and 1945.  How do you see research happening in a game?  How do you go from biplanes being state-of-the-art to P-51 Mustangs?

Chris--

Firstly, I'm not against Tech Trees.
What I would like to see is some realistic implementation of what R&D was like from a top-level position.
Did the Top Brass throw money at labs and get lucky with a better tank ?
Did someone in High Command or the defense minister decide to go one way with Destroyers or not ? How did it actually work for real ? Who made the decisions, who were the teams? etc. Has any game actually modelled real-world R&D ?

Very interesting thread, I've enjoyed following it.  How deep down the tech-tree 'rabbit hole' of realism do we go and still retain a enjoyable, playable and marketable game?  At some point a line is crossed where a game becomes work rather than a fun learning experience....I'm thinking of War in the Pacific which to many gamers is so deeply complex and mired in micro-management as to be unplayable.

[Ian C]

At some point a line is crossed where a game becomes work rather than a fun learning experience....I'm thinking of War in the Pacific which to many gamers is so deeply complex and mired in micro-management as to be unplayable.

I think the best way would be to have a game run at macro level with the options to tweak at micro levels (which the AI does by default) ; e.g. "I want to go with a Carrier-Based Naval R&D and Builiding plan (Click!) but would like to oversee Submarine developement personally because I'm a Sub fan (Click, click, click, click, click...)".

Most games seem to be either Micro or Macro with nothing in between.

[Rayfer]

At some point a line is crossed where a game becomes work rather than a fun learning experience....I'm thinking of War in the Pacific which to many gamers is so deeply complex and mired in micro-management as to be unplayable.

I think the best way would be to have a game run at macro level with the options to tweak at micro levels (which the AI does by default) ; e.g. "I want to go with a Carrier-Based Naval R&D and Builiding plan (Click!) but would like to oversee Submarine developement personally because I'm a Sub fan (Click, click, click, click, click...)".

Most games seem to be either Micro or Macro with nothing in between.

Sort of like Matrix's Distant Worlds that allows you to micro-manage starship development, design and construction or turn it over to the AI allowing the player focus on other aspects, i.e. colonization, diplomacy, etc...?? or am I missing your point?

[sandman2575]

What exactly would you like to see replace the tech tree?  There is no getting around the fact that (using WWII as an example) there was a massive increase in the types and effectiveness of military hardware in a short time between 1935 and 1945.  How do you see research happening in a game?  How do you go from biplanes being state-of-the-art to P-51 Mustangs?

Chris--

What I'd like to see is a tech mechanic that integrates high-level war goals, R&D, and industrial production.

Instead of forcing the player to select specific techs according to a branching tree of options -- the Sid Meier approach -- why not organize things along lines of a "military-industrial complex." For example, say I'm playing the Allies and want to make strategic bombing a priority. Well, maybe the game provides an "aeronautics industry" that I can fund from my (finite) government coffers – finite, so that there are trade-offs involved.  Maybe there are options I can select to steer the aeronautics industry in a certain direction:  "emphasize bomber development."  The more funding I give, the faster the aeronautics industry will produce a prototype:  a B-17, say.  Then, there needs to be a time allowance for testing and refining. If the prototype eventually passes muster, it can go into production.   

To go from WW2 to Space 4x for a moment -- one of the things I really like about the "Sword of the Stars" take on tech research is that it introduces the element of chance.  You have to do a 'feasibility study' for any tech.  And maybe the tech in question just turns out to be prohibitively expensive to pursue.  Maybe you are researching a tech, and it goes over budget and takes much longer than anticipated. Or there's an early breakthrough.  These simple additions, in my view, make research in SotS way more interesting than the insipid, hideously boring "Select new Tech. Wait 5 turns. Receive New Tech. Rinse and Repeat" mechanic that is more or less mindlessly reproduced in 4x games, as well as WW2 grand strategy games a la Hearts of Iron.

Anyway, I would definitely want the "element of chance" to enter into any tech research scheme I could envision for "The Perfect WW2 Grand Strategy Game." And I would want the player to have *much less direct control* over how R&D proceeds than he usually does. It should be possible to waste resources on projects that don't materialize or are just impractical – something that would approximate Hitler's wasteful obsession with "wonder weapons", for instance. Or, maybe the wonder weapon R&D does pan out, and Germany gets the Bomb in '44.

I fully grant that these ideas are not perfect.  But for the love of God, something needs to be done to make tech research more engaging – more fun – than it currently is in all too many 4x/grand strategy games.

[Ian C]

Sort of like Matrix's Distant Worlds that allows you to micro-manage starship development, design and construction or turn it over to the AI allowing the player focus on other aspects, i.e. colonization, diplomacy, etc...?? or am I missing your point?

No, you're correct.